The First Presidential Debate: The Components of Attitude

Just as a hurricane threatened to halt the RNC a month ago, the drama surrounding the U.S. financial crisis, precipitated by the failure of AIG and Merrill Lynch, looked like it was going to prevent the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama from occurring Friday night.

In The Candidate (1972), Bill McKay (Robert Redford), a left-wing lawyer, agrees to run a hopeless Senate campaign in California against strong Republican incumbent Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter). Early on in the contest, both candidates race to the scene of a wildfire to capitalize on the PR value of consoling property damage victims on camera. However, Jarmon’s take-charge persona totally overshadows McKay and relegates him to weak, second-banana status.

I think that’s what McCain tried to do with his gimmicky pledge to freeze all campaign operations until a bailout bill was passed. The elder senator would race to Washington and spearhead some sort of solution to the current financial crisis, leaving Obama the Hobson’s choice of impotently tagging along or staying in Mississippi to debate with himself.

It’s clear to me why the McCain team did it. A perception that McCain ads dishonestly sling mud, Sarah Palin’s poor performance during the Katie Couric interview, and the senator’s contradictory statements about the “fundamental soundness” of the economy while calling for the head of SEC chairman Christopher Cox had all taken their toll on his campaign. When you’re in a hole, quit digging. So this “time-out,” in my opinion, was designed to stop the bleeding and change the subject.

Not to be outdone in playing politics, after what was reportedly a heated debate at the White House, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank claimed that instead of helping the process, McCain actually derailed an already agreed upon bailout package.

I’d counter that the zeal of President Bush and Congress to hurriedly pass the $700 billion package is eerily similar to the haste with which now-defaulting mortgage holders signed on for seemingly attractive sub-prime loans before reading the fine print. Also, if the supposed bailout package is so great, then the Democrat-controlled Congress and an equally supportive president should be able to pass whatever they want without ONE Republican vote.

I’d submit that the real reason nothing happened on Friday is because lawmakers sensed that voters aren’t fully onboard the bailout bandwagon. As reported by David Goldman in CNNMoney, “Americans think the cost of the $700 billion plan being debated in Congress is too high. Though 55% said they favor the proposed bailout, 65% said it would probably treat taxpayers unfairly.”

With no deal in sight and his bluff called, McCain changed course one more time and decided to show up at Ole Miss. It was like that Seinfeld episode where Costanza angrily announces that he’s quitting his job only to report for work the next day pretending that it was all a joke (heh, heh).

Stating that he was opposed to Friday’s debate before he was for it (or is that the other way around?) made McCain seem a bit erratic. Dare I say, ahem, crazy?

Yet in a weird, counter-intuitive, “New Coke” kind of way, McCain’s goofy last minute decision might have actually helped rather then hurt him on Friday. Since this was the “foreign policy” debate—McCain’s wheelhouse—expectations for him to mop the floor with his opponent were high. Anything short of a bloodbath could have been perceived as a “win” for Obama. So McCain’s behavior before the event may have effectively lowered the bar for HIM.

Let me say, first off: as political theater, I really enjoyed the debate. Many talking heads are lamenting the fact that it lacked any “catch phrases” or “memorable moments.” I’m frankly tired of hearing about Reagan’s “there he goes again” or Bentsen’s “you’re no Jack Kennedy” lines. Political debates have become glorified press conferences where the participants have a very narrow window of opportunity to score some sound bite points and get out. These small moments may appeal to our Thunderdome mentality, but I’m not so sure are very instructive. Though neither McCain nor Obama gave a perfect performance, it was one of the most interesting presidential debates I’ve seen in years. Who won? That’s a tough one. I’m inclined to give it to McCain. But that’s probably because, as a supporter, I’m philosophically more in line with him.

When judging these sorts of events, the marketing major in me constantly thinks back to the “Components of Attitudes” model, which describes how an “attitude” actually consists of three basic elements: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. A cognitive element is a fact or piece of information that one knows or believes to be true about a given subject. The affective component is how an individual viscerally responds to that subject. And the behavioral piece is what someone actually does about it. If all three of these elements are not in harmony, an internal discomfort, referred to as “cognitive dissonance,” occurs. Individuals, knowingly or not, seek to avoid dissonance and attain harmony. Thus, for example, if someone reads statistics that purportedly show the death penalty being unfairly applied, then that person will most likely feel bad AND vote against proposals to expand the practice.

Of course, emotions can attach to a topic before any facts are known. I HATE Michael Moore. Therefore, I’d be inclined to disbelieve him if he claimed the sun rose in the east and set in the west. And behavior may be the driving factor. People who have voted Democrat or Republican their entire life generally end up liking the candidate their party nominates. If that candidate holds a position on an issue they disagree with (say illegal immigration, NAFTA, or abortion), it’s mentally discounted for the sake of internal harmony.

As a result, I usually take most of the post-debate polls with a grain of salt. They nearly always fall along party lines that, while perhaps accurately reflecting people’s honestly held opinions, still have to be considered in light of the CoA model. With this in mind, here’s a quick summary of my reaction to different aspects of the debate.

Style and Aesthetics

In terms of style, I have to give it to Obama. Despite starting off a bit stiffly, his mannerisms were relaxed and he seemed more polished. McCain never looks comfortable in his own skin. Between questions, he fidgeted with his notes, blinked constantly, and wore curiously random expressions. Temperamentally, Obama was the “friendlier” of the two. McCain adopted a more confrontational demeanor and often questioned Obama’s credentials (just as Biden and Clinton had during the primary debates).

Visually, Obama’s solid red tie, white shirt, and dark suit worked better than the striped red tie and light blue shirt that McCain’s people had curiously outfitted him in.

Financial Recovery, National Security, and Free Form

Lehrer started things off by square pegging an economic question into the round foreign policy template of the debate based on President Eisenhower’s observation that “the foundation of military strength is economic strength.” Surprisingly, Obama didn’t take McCain to task for impeding the progress of the financial recovery plan as the Democratic leaders had done earlier that day. True or not, this would have served to remind people about McCain’s vacillating behavior. Also, Obama is sometimes a little too intellectual for his own good with unintentional laugh lines like “uh, seven hundred billion dollars is, uh, potentially a lot of money” (that’s a direct quote).

The debate format allocated “free form” time where the participants could spontaneously engage each other. However, both men seemed reluctant to do so. Lehrer implored Obama and McCain to address each other directly as if they were two shy boys standing in the corner at a junior high school dance.

Whose Facts?

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said during a heated argument that “You’re entitled to your own opinions—but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

Here’s where one has to ask whose facts are right. Numbers were tossed back and forth freely. The U.S. has a business tax of thirty-five percent, while Ireland’s is only eleven percent. But wait, don’t U.S. businesses have all kinds of loopholes. Is $250,000 a year rich if you’re a private business owner? Did Henry Kissinger really say that an American president should meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions? McCain and Obama both presented nuanced versions of their own respective truths.

Right, But What Would You Cut?

Both men were asked to list what they would give up to accommodate the cost of the impending 700 billion dollar bailout package. I got a chuckle out of the fact that, even though Lehrer gave him a few tries, Obama presented a spending wish list instead of outlining what he would cut. Ever the Republican, McCain was able to actually list things he’d cut, and carefully pointed out a number of times that he’d protect veterans. McCain meandered off topic to talk about nuclear reactors. To which Obama responded by drifting into the equally radioactive topic of health care reform.

The Lessons of Iraq

This was where I thought McCain was really at his strongest. I know, Obama was always against the decision to launch military operations in Iraq. And once Bush made that decision, his administration botched its implementation. Trust me, MOST of the Republicans I talk to are just as disgusted with that fact as anyone else. However, harping about how wrongly it was handled in 2003 doesn’t change the realities of 2008. In Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Blanche gripes to her sister that she wouldn’t be able to treat her so awfully if she wasn’t confined to a wheelchair. To which Jane replies, “But you ARE, Blanche! You ARE in that chair!”

While Obama’s gotten a lot of traction (and arguably the nomination) out of always being opposed to the war, for me he’s never clearly delineated a vision for Iraq that’s much different from McCain’s. Or, to put it another way, Obama has never substantively answered the question that Redford’s McKay, after winning an upset victory over Jarmon, posed at the end of The Candidate: “What do we do now?”

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

Oh, I forgot Jason, I liked your review of the Ralph Nader documentary. In spite of the fact that he's been a dark cloud over my home state (Michigan) for years, I had to grudgingly give him his props.Posted by Matt Maul on 2008-10-01 01:14:00

So taken as a direct quote, your interpretation is correct. But watch it again, and I think you'll see he's trying to throw the "potentially" back at the not-yet-concrete figure. He may be too intellectual for his own good, but I don't think that was an example of it. That was actually Bushian.

I YouTubed it and have to concede your point. But it still struck me as funny at the time--so, I'm not taking it back :)Posted by Matt Maul on 2008-10-01 01:05:00

Matt: I meant to write this the other day, and your latest comment reminded me. On Obama's $700 billion comment ... I've watched it twice and I think he misspoke and you misunderstood (as a result).

The "potentially" is actually in relation to the figure (as in "potentially $700 billion"), not to the "a lot of money." He throws the word in too late, like someone knee-deep in talking about a murder trial and saying "allegedly" long after he's called someone a murderer.

So taken as a direct quote, your interpretation is correct. But watch it again, and I think you'll see he's trying to throw the "potentially" back at the not-yet-concrete figure. He may be too intellectual for his own good, but I don't think that was an example of it. That was actually Bushian.

For what it's worth.Posted by Jason Bellamy on 2008-09-30 20:26:00

Not to split hairs, but Ahmadinejad isn't technically the 'leader' of Iran. That would be Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

What Hitchens (surprisingly) fails to point out, is that the only reason Kissinger is called out here is because he's in McCain's circle. From the Secretary of State alumni pool there's also Colon Powell, James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright all endorced meeting with Iran without preconditions.

For anyone curious, theres's a great article in The Atlantic about how this potential gaffe* of agreeing to meet without preconditions turned into a bold new foreign policy for Obama, and was the turning point in his primary campaign.

*I think that Obama honestly stepped outside safe party lines before fully articulating in a 'policy,' which is a gaffe in the context of a 'carefully orchestrated campaign.'Posted by drake leLane on 2008-09-30 17:41:00

j.gibbs...confrontational, or condescending, or dismissive, or outright hostility. the old mccain anger issues coming to a fore. it seemed to this, albeit partisan viewer, that the question of judgement clouded by conviction and spite that haunts mccain, and as the current administration shows is disasterous in leadership, reared its ugly head.

I'll grant you that McCain certainly hasn't done much to acquit himself of the "anger" charge lately.

but i continue to hate and not understand this argument.i want a president who is an intellectual,

Can I help it if I got a chuckle out of Obama's notion that 700 billion is "potentially" a lot of money? I really didn't make THAT big of out of it, did I?

Did Henry Kissinger really say that an American president should meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions?....no, and neither did obama. he said that the government should meet with iran without preconditions.

Actually, he did: From David Corn (hardly a McCain supporter) at the Nation:

During one of Democrate primary debates, Obama took this question (bolds added):

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

"I would. And the reason is this..." He then goes on to explain why. It was Clinton and Edwards in their answers who first brought up the potential propaganda value to Iran in response to Obama's answer. Obama has since altered that stance, but it doesn't change the fact that he DID say it. BTW, Christopeher Hitchens has a funny column in Slate wondering why anyone cares WHAT Kissinger has to say.

RE: Iraq: obama did outline a plan for iraq, one that has been acknowledged as perhaps correct by the iraqi governement and even considered as viable by republicans and the bush administration. did mccain's condescending quips really convince you?

Obama has outlined more than one position on Iraq. He's finally conceded that he'd listen to the military regarding an actual withdrawl plan (which, I'm sure he would). Bottom line, I frankly don't hear anything from him that's much different than McCain's position. And his inexperience as evidenced by the "preconditions" flap and his stance on renegotiating NAFTA that required a hasty call to Canada to quell the concerns they had (i.e. "I didn't really mean it"), have innoculated me to obamasms.

While McCain's stupid bailout stunt last week (along with the Palin pick) has loosened my death grip on the McCain lever, I'm still forced to stick with the devil I know, versus the one that I don't.Posted by Matt Maul on 2008-09-30 17:01:00

i'll admit i'm now feeling too lazy to go through this as much as i'd like but a few responses.

McCain adopted a more confrontational demeanor and often questioned Obama's credentials (just as Biden and Clinton had during the primary debates).

confrontational, or condescending, or dismissive, or outright hostility. the old mccain anger issues coming to a fore. it seemed to this, albeit partisan viewer, that the question of judgement clouded by conviction and spite that haunts mccain, and as the current administration shows is disasterous in leadership, reared its ugly head.

Also, Obama is sometimes a little too intellectual for his own good

both candidates had failings in the economy section but i continue to hate and not understand this argument. i want a president who is an intellectual, who is smart as can be, who actually thinks in nuance about issues and positions. i could care less about the proverbial beer. gimme a smart ass motherfucker over a personable one any day.

Did Henry Kissinger really say that an American president should meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions?

no, and neither did obama. he said that the government should meet with iran without preconditions. exactly as kissinger said. exactly as bush has realized they must do. mccain intentionally distorted obamas claims as he knew he was up shits creek. obama didn't say he personally would sit down with iran or north korea, etc. but sending a secretary of state is implied and is what kissinger endorsed, and palin mocked him for holding as a position.

Ever the Republican, McCain was able to actually list things he'd cut, and carefully pointed out a number of times that he'd protect veterans.

while i will say obama never clearly answered this question straight up all mccain offered was more bs about earmarks (hey, you realize those bear dna earmarks you mock are strikingly similar to those your vp choice got for seal dna? way to vet.) which obama showed are a miniscule part of the budget. also, obama made it clear that you can't make flat claims now on what you don't know will happen in the future, again, not a fancy catchphrases but an acknowledgment of change and nuanced thought. may not play well in 10 second clips but something i'd like in a president. as per veterans, i wish obama had pointed out the numerous times mccain has voted against veteran benefits. see this link: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/mccain-on-veter.html

mccain has been fairly awful on veterans issues over the years and should have been refuted for his claims.

as per the iraq questions. come on. obama a) showed that judgement matters. b) mccain's answers on the lessons of iraq were also quite vague and talking points-ish and all about the talking point of the surge. in the matter of a president it does matter what someone thought on the war itself. and c) obama did outline a plan for iraq, one that has been acknowledged as perhaps correct by the iraqi governement and even considered as viable by republicans and the bush administration. did mccain's condescending quips really convince you?

and, fyi, this: It was like that Seinfeld episode where Costanza angrily announces that he's quitting his job only to report for work the next day pretending that it was all a joke (heh, heh).

is an actual larry david experience at saturday night live.Posted by j. gibbs on 2008-09-30 02:17:00

Drake...Obama laid to rest fears that he wouldn't appear Presidential. He didn't really have to win the debate to win, as a result.

Anon...Admit it: The Bush administration committed crimes to make this war happen and we're all paying the price for it. Quit pretending like it doesn't matter now that we're in the war.

It's that same faulty logic that blames mortgage owners for the current crisis, rather than the deregulation that allowed the situation to occur in the first place.

No one's pinning ALL the blame on mortgage owners, but they're certainly part of the problem. And I wonder how the Dems, as champions of the common people, will treat greedy house flippers in their bailout oversight? Will they even address it?

I'd further argue that while deregulation certainly contributed to the situation. Quasi-regulation in the form of governmental prodding encouraging lenders to make loans to people who couldn't afford it was equally to blame.

Joan...Matt, early reports from Democrats that McCain had scuttled a nearly-done deal have been debunked rather thoroughly.

At the time of the writing nothing definitive was out. I only presented it as the position of Congressional Democrats.

Drake...To the point of the 'nearly done deal,' McCain's stunt did affect the proceedings. It both hurried (Dems) and slowed down (House Repubs) the work being done immediately after his intentions were made known.

IF he did, AND it slowed things down, all the better.

Telling, though, that the bill in current form looks awfully similar to the one that was supposedly almost done last week. It's a stinker of a deal, though... I'd be awfully afraid to back it in any form if I was a forward thinking Congressman or Senator (thank God I'm not).

Again, I agree.

Anon...There wasn't "faulty" intelligence, it was cooked and passed off as genuine, and you can find verification for this through countless sources. Just Google "Curveball" for starters, and then let's talk about who's trading "reality for delusion."

"Did Iraq have WMDs" will be the "Alger Hiss" debate of the next ten years.

Certainly the intelligence fiasco is disgusting and I don't doubt that Bush cherry-picked intel to support a decision that was already made. However, LOTS of people, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, are all on record as thinking that Iraq was a threat.

The main weakness with the scenario that the WMD threat was a total fabrication by the Bush Admin is that, if true, then WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THEM. That would have much easier to fake then the moon landing :)

withnail...You can call it cutting and running, or withdrawal, or a timeline, or whatever - but even McCain realizes that at some point the boys have come home because they're needed elsewhere. that's not the point. The point is - are we going to keep on trusting the dumb decisions of the Republicans, and then ignore how we got here in the first place.

While we probably don't see things eye to eye politically, your last point is well taken.

On Sunday night, my brother (a stronger Republican than myself) and I were smoking cigars and lamenting how Bush's handling of the Iraq war has been utterly devastating for the GOP.Posted by Matt Maul on 2008-09-29 15:47:00

you say that there's not that much daylight between MCCain and Obama in terms of what to do now in Iraq. That may be true. And that is, 5 years after we went in, there's not that much for the American Troops to *DO* there, aside from figure out a way to end the conflict, on our terms, with a minimum of loss of life, and not leave a shit storm in the process.

You can call it cutting and running, or withdrawal, or a timeline, or whatever -

but even McCain realizes that at some point the boys have come home because they're needed elsewhere.

that's not the point. The point is - are we going to keep on trusting the dumb decisions of the Republicans, and then ignore how we got here in the first place.

For a party that values the - ahem - values of old - they seem awfully adverse to thinking about their past actions and learning from them.Posted by Withnail on 2008-09-29 05:16:00

On Iraq; Joan and Drake, please remember this: the "faulty" intelligence presented by the Administration--which other nations and Democrats in Congress were shown and on which they based their decisions--was cherry-picked and altered intelligence out of the Office of the VIce President and Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That is an unalterable fact.

There wasn't "faulty" intelligence, it was cooked and passed off as genuine, and you can find verification for this through countless sources. Just Google "Curveball" for starters, and then let's talk about who's trading "reality for delusion."

As far as McCain's stunt, he obviously had his finger in the wind knowing that the House Repubs were about to propose their nonsense version of a plan and hoping to be able to outflank the Democrats, wriggling in their usual spot between a rock and a hard place.

- mercuryPosted by Anonymous on 2008-09-29 04:00:00

To Joan's point, don't forget, a lot of Democrats voted for the war.

Ultimately, though, the question posed was 'what are the lessons learned from Iraq,' and questioning how we ended up there should certainly be part of any lesson learned. However much McCain and camp would like (everyone) to forget it, when reminded, many voters still find it important.

To the point of the 'nearly done deal,' McCain's stunt did affect the proceedings. It both hurried (Dems) and slowed down (House Repubs) the work being done immediately after his intentions were made known.

Telling, though, that the bill in current form looks awfully similar to the one that was supposedly almost done last week. It's a stinker of a deal, though... I'd be awfully afraid to back it in any form if I was a forward thinking Congressman or Senator (thank God I'm not).Posted by drake leLane on 2008-09-29 01:21:00

Matt, early reports from Democrats that McCain had scuttled a nearly-done deal have been debunked rather thoroughly. Anonymous, like far too many, ignores reality in favor of delusions. In 2003, there was bad intelligence on Iraq, but the US was not exclusive in its reliance on it. There were multiple UN resolutions in the excruciatingly long run-up to the war, and we did not attack Iraq alone. The "war crimes" cry is simply unfounded.Posted by Joan on 2008-09-29 00:42:00

"However, harping about how wrongly it was handled in 2003 doesn't change the realities of 2008."

The problem with Republicans, and for that matter a majority of Americans, is that they would rather ignore the lies that got us into this war and pretend like it doesn';t matter.

Well, it does matter. It matter when a President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense commit impeachable acts that wipe out our economy with massive deficits and get 4,000+ American soldiers killed.

I';m so F$%&ing sick of hearing Republicans pretend like the reasons we went to war don';t matter anymore. That petty display of politics bankrupts anything they have to say about the country right now.

Admit it: The Bush administration committed crimes to make this war happen and we';re all paying the price for it. Quit pretending like it doesn';t matter now that we';re in the war.

It';s that same faulty logic that blames mortgage owners for the current crisis, rather than the deregulation that allowed the situation to occur in the first place.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-09-28 18:07:00

I think McCain might have won if the you only heard it in the radio, but the visual aspect made him look both hostile, insecure, possibly even disdainful. He couldn't even look at Obama during the entirety of the debate.

Reports coming out now show that McCain might have been genuinely angry at Obama, as during the meeting at the White House, McCain was humiliated a bit, one upped by Obama and the Democrats, who were tipped off of their plan beforehand by Paulson.

While those already in McCain's camp probably didn't think it meant anything, I don't think it played well with the undecided voter. Meanwhile, Obama laid to rest fears that he wouldn't appear Presidential. He didn't really have to win the debate to win, as a result.Posted by drake leLane on 2008-09-28 05:50:00